Jump to content

Unions try to block minimum wage increase


Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080201670.html

 

 

 

Whats interesting about this story is that to me this bill seemed like a great mdoerate compromise. the reps get the estate tax cuts, the democrats get the raised minimum wage, and then some other popular research incentives and such are getting passed as well. Seems like good legislation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fritz

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice use of the word 'fag' there. :rolleyes:

 

It's a move strictly for the next elections, I agree. Republicans can make two groups happy by bundling the two proposals. Making themselves look good by raising the wage and by also having their political backers happy as well with the other proposals. I'd be shocked if this didn't get passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

 

 

It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

 

 

It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

 

 

It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts.

 

The problem is what the article neglects to mention is that if u increase minimum wage you increase everyones wages. Furthermore, i understand medicaid is a state program not federal, am I correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

 

 

It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts.

 

The problem is what the article neglects to mention is that if u increase minimum wage you increase everyones wages. Furthermore, i understand medicaid is a state program not federal, am I correct?

It's combined. All 50 states have elected to be part of the program which requires them to cover certain people and income levels with feds providing funds too. States are actually in fiscal crunches and are being asked to take on more of the load I believe.

 

The way cuts are usually made to the programs are by reducing the required criteria in terms of both income and category qualification. Some categories of individuals states have to cover and cover to the extent of federal income floors but they can expand on if they choose. Other categories of individuals are options for the state with federal govt offering to match if states elect to cover them.

 

The feds can cut back on the categories of individuals and the max income you can earn to qualify for the assistance. So the people who would get screwed over by cuts to the program are people who work but dont get health insurance from their employers-and the mass majority of times, these arent the min wage workers. Thats why the unions are opposing the estate tax because more of their workers are likely to lose benefits like this and are the workers who gain from the wage hike. And even those who gain from the wage hike are likely to lose. Health insurance is just one category too.

 

Also, how does an increase in the min wage result in everyone's wages increasing? Why would a firm that pays its workers $8 an hour start paying them more if they dont have to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue.

 

How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either.

 

And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime.

 

And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again:

 

Stop the fags

Stop the five random wackos who burn flags.

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

Anything missing?

 

The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher.

 

 

Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements.

 

And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there.

 

 

It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts.

 

The problem is what the article neglects to mention is that if u increase minimum wage you increase everyones wages. Furthermore, i understand medicaid is a state program not federal, am I correct?

It's combined. All 50 states have elected to be part of the program which requires them to cover certain people and income levels with feds providing funds too. States are actually in fiscal crunches and are being asked to take on more of the load I believe.

 

The way cuts are usually made to the programs are by reducing the required criteria in terms of both income and category qualification. Some categories of individuals states have to cover and cover to the extent of federal income floors but they can expand on if they choose. Other categories of individuals are options for the state with federal govt offering to match if states elect to cover them.

 

The feds can cut back on the categories of individuals and the max income you can earn to qualify for the assistance. So the people who would get screwed over by cuts to the program are people who work but dont get health insurance from their employers-and the mass majority of times, these arent the min wage workers. Thats why the unions are opposing the estate tax because more of their workers are likely to lose benefits like this and are the workers who gain from the wage hike. And even those who gain from the wage hike are likely to lose. Health insurance is just one category too.

 

Also, how does an increase in the min wage result in everyone's wages increasing? Why would a firm that pays its workers $8 an hour start paying them more if they dont have to?

 

Every organization that has any minimum wage workers will have to increase everyone else's salaries. Although the connection for increasing everyone's salaries is not that out of left field either. You pay a skilled worke rin your business 9 an hour, another business with minimum wage workers pays unskilled laborers minimum and tenured unskilled 8. The tenured unskilled go up to 9 in a similar organization, so the skilled making 9 should also be receiving an increase in order for this organization to be able to keep those types of employees, without having them leave for more pay elsewhere.

 

Regardless, there is sitll a weak connection between the estate tax cut and how much it will affect any govt programs at all. Especially with health care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is LONG overdue.

 

Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996.

 

I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congressional pay raises are part of the General Schedule for all federal GS employees. Technically, they don't vote for the raises, as allowed for in the Constitution. Instead, by inserting their raises into the GS schedule, the raises are automatic unless Congress passes a bill prohibiting them. This way, Congress gets an "unwanted surprise" every year because they conveniently have more important matters than passing legislation to prohibit their raises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is LONG overdue.

 

Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996.

 

I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either.

 

 

Minimum wage is much higher than $5.15 now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is LONG overdue.

 

Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996.

 

I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either.

 

 

Minimum wage is much higher than $5.15 now.

It depends where you live, I know that in North Carolina in high school it was definitely 5.15.

 

Good resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is LONG overdue.

 

Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996.

 

I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either.

 

 

Minimum wage is much higher than $5.15 now.

Yes, that's true in some places, but not everywhere, as Passion just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This bill is LONG overdue.

 

Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996.

 

I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either.

 

 

Minimum wage is much higher than $5.15 now.

 

Nope. Federal minimum wage is at 5.15 right now. The new one is 7.25. Floridas state minimum is 6.50. And I'd hate to be the owner of a small business that has to pay the people who mop the floor 12 dollars an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...